Learning approaches: the behaviourist approach, including classical conditioning and Pavlov’s research, operant conditioning, types of reinforcement and Skinner’s research

THE BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH - LEARNING THEORY

IN A NUTSHELL:

Behaviourism, or learning theory, is a nurture, environmental theory that asserts our surroundings and experiences shape us. It emphasises that our behaviour is moulded primarily by external stimuli rather than innate factors.
Behaviourists believe that human learning occurs unconsciously and reflexively. Individuals acquire behaviours without being aware of the learning process, developing responses through experiences and associations. In this view, thought is considered irrelevant.
Behaviourists think the brain is unimportant and cannot be effectively studied. They refer to it as a "black box," indicating that the internal workings of the mind are beyond empirical observation and are not central to understanding behaviour.
As a result, behaviourists see no fundamental difference between how humans and other mammals learn. Much of their research uses animal studies, as they believe the basic learning mechanisms are universal across species.
A central concept in behaviourism is the stimulus-response mechanism, also known as associative learning, where behaviours become linked with specific outcomes. The learned association can still trigger the response even if an individual consciously attempts to restrain behaviour.
Another integral part of behaviourism is learning by consequence, which occurs through either reinforcement or punishment. The power of reinforcement—whether through rewards or discipline—is seen as a fundamental mechanism by which behaviours are shaped within society.

In summary, behaviourism emphasises the role of learning through associations and reinforcement in shaping human behaviour. It posits that human behaviour can be understood and predicted by studying observable actions and consequences without delving into conscious thoughts or motivations. This perspective has significantly influenced psychology, particularly in the study of conditioning, behaviour modification, and learning theories.

INTRODUCTION

Behaviorism emerged in the early 1900s as a reaction to traditional forms of psychology, such as psychoanalysis, which often struggled to make experimentally testable predictions because they focused on abstract concepts. To behaviourists, observation is a cornerstone of science since true objectivity can only be achieved by witnessing events firsthand; anything else is mere conjecture. Consequently, they concentrated exclusively on observable behaviours—that is, what they could actually see a person or animal do after being trained or after environmental modifications.

According to behaviourists, scientific inquiry must rely on direct observation rather than argument or belief, and any methods that conflict with observable facts should be dismissed. Scientists should collect data on the world around them, record their observations, and use this evidence to support their theories. This approach contrasts sharply with methods that depend on pure reason or subjectivity, as seen in philosophy, structuralism (Wundt), functionalism (James), and psychoanalytic theory (Freud).

Behaviourism also drew on earlier research from the late nineteenth century, notably when Edward Thorndike pioneered the law of effect—a procedure using consequences to strengthen or weaken behaviour.

Behaviourism emerged in the early 1900s as a reaction to traditional forms of psychology, such as psychoanalysis, which often struggled to make experimentally testable predictions because they focused on abstract concepts. To behaviourists, observation is a cornerstone of science since true objectivity can only be achieved by witnessing events first-hand; anything else is mere conjecture.

n the early twentieth century; behaviourists contended that any attempt to study the brain directly was an exercise in futility. With no advanced tools to peer into the intricate workings of neural activity, researchers argued that the inner processes of the brain were inaccessible and inherently speculative. As a result, they maintained that only external, observable behaviour could yield objective, reliable data, leaving the mysterious workings of the brain firmly in the realm of the unknown.

Consequently, they concentrated exclusively on observable behaviours—what they could see a person or animal do after being trained or following environmental modifications. According to behaviourists, scientific inquiry must rely on direct observation rather than argument or belief, and any methods that conflict with observable facts should be dismissed. Scientists should collect data on the world around them, record their observations, and use this evidence to support their theories. This approach contrasts sharply with methods that depend on pure reason or subjectivity, as seen in philosophy, structuralism (Wundt), functionalism (James), and psychoanalytic theory (Freud). Behaviourism also drew on earlier research from the late nineteenth century, notably when Edward Thorndike pioneered the law of effect—a procedure using consequences to strengthen or weaken behaviour.

THE BLACKBOX BLACKBOX PROBLEM The denial of conscious experience

Behaviourism disregards the brain’s internal processes (the so‐called “black box”), such as thoughts and emotions, as these are deemed irrelevant to understanding behaviour. Skinner remarked, “What goes through people’s minds is irrelevant. With this stimulus, they have learned to have their particular thoughts under these circumstances. What is important is understanding the relationships between input (stimulus) and output (response) through the ‘black box.’” Behaviourists contend that internal processes like thought, attention, memory, and language are disconnected from the study of human behaviour. They view the “black box” as a passive entity, shaped from infancy onwards, that only changes through learning from environmental stimuli.

BEHAVIOUR IS THE RESULT OF STIMULUS-RESPONSE CONDITIONING

Because behaviourists regard internal processes as irrelevant to understanding human behaviour and impossible to measure (e.g. introspection), they exclude them from their research. Instead, they contend that one can appreciate an organism by selectively presenting stimuli to its 'black box' and observing its responses—what the organism has learned. In the behaviourist view, all behaviour, no matter how complex, can be reduced to a simple stimulus-response association. Watson encapsulated this perspective by stating, “To predict, given the stimulus, what reaction will take place; or, given the reaction, state what the situation or stimulus has caused the reaction.

THERE IS LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LEARNING THAT TAKES PLACE IN HUMANS AND THAT IN OTHER ANIMALS

Behaviourists consider the use of animals in research unproblematic, believing that the findings can be directly extrapolated to human behaviour. With the 'black box' deemed irrelevant, there is no fundamental qualitative distinction between human and animal behaviour. The same results emerge whether one studies laboratory rats, lions in the wild, or humans in urban settings. Consequently, research is carried out on animals and humans (i.e., comparative psychology), which is why rats and pigeons became primary data sources for behaviourists, given the ease with which their environments could be controlled.

ALL BEHAVIOUR IS LEARNED FROM THE ENVIRONMENT: PEOPLE ARE BORN BLANK SLATES; IT'S ALL NURTURE AND NO NATURE

Behaviourists assert that an individual’s personality and behaviour develop through interactions between the organism and its environment. They maintain that humans are born with ‘blank slate’ brains (tabula rasa), dismissing the role of biological factors—such as genes, natural selection, and hormones—in shaping personality. For early behaviourists, nurture and environmental influences were paramount, rendering nature irrelevant.

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in, and I’ll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (Watson, 1930).

BEHAVIOURISTS BELIEVE THAT PSYCHOLOGY SHOULD BE SEEN AS A SCIENCE

In 1913, John Watson wrote an article entitled 'Psychology as the behaviourist views it,' which set out several underlying assumptions regarding this new approach:

“Psychology, as the behaviourist views it, is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behaviour. Introspection forms no essential part of its methods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent upon the readiness to lend themselves to interpretation in terms of consciousness.” In his efforts to get a unitary scheme of animal response, the behaviourist recognizes no dividing line between man and brute. The behaviour of man, with all of its refinement and complexity, forms only a part of the behaviourist's total scheme of investigation” - WATSON, 1913

Watson wanted psychology to be taken seriously as a science. To do this, he focused on making it more like fields such as physics and chemistry, with clear methods that could be tested and verified. He believed that by using experiments and objectively gathering data, psychology could provide solid, scientific answers about human behaviour. The goal was to make psychology predictable and measurable so it could be tested and ultimately proven right or wrong, just like the study of natural sciences. for 10 seconds

Watson wanted psychology to be seen as a real science, on the same level as physics or chemistry. He believed that by following clear, strict rules for planning and running experiments, researchers could make reliable predictions about behavior. In simple terms, if scientists use well-defined methods, gather measurable data, and repeat tests to confirm their findings, they can truly understand how people behave.

SCHOOLS OF BEHAVIOURISM

METHODOLOGICAL BEHAVIOURISM:
John Watson (1913) argued that only what we can observe and measure matters. According to this view, our minds start as blank slates, and all behaviour is learned from the environment—biology isn’t a key factor.

RADICAL BEHAVIOURISM:
B.F. Skinner (1938) expanded on these ideas with operant conditioning, showing how rewards and punishments shape behaviour. Unlike methodological behaviourism, radical behaviourism accepts that some responses may be innate, influenced by our biological makeup.

NEOBEHAVIOURISM:
Pioneered by researchers like Clark Hull, this approach introduces “intervening variables” — hidden processes that help explain how a stimulus leads to a response. Although these variables aren’t directly observable, they offer a more detailed model of learning.

PURPOSIVE (TELEOLOGICAL) BEHAVIOURISM:
Edward Tolman suggested that behaviour is goal-directed. He believed that both humans and animals form mental maps to navigate their environments and reach goals, adding a layer of purpose to learning.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY:
Developed by Albert Bandura, this theory emphasises learning through watching others. However, some argue it isn’t truly behaviourist because it attributes some effects to cognition and thinking—factors that traditional behaviourism deliberately excludes

THE TWO TYPES OF BEHAVIOURISM.

There are two types of behaviourism: classical and operant conditioning. Both of these are types of associative learning. i.e., learning that takes place because of conditioning. Learning by association is classical conditioning and learning by consequence is operant conditioning.

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

Classical conditioning is learning through association, a concept discovered by Pavlov, a Russian physiologist. In this form of learning, a conditioned stimulus (CS) becomes linked with an unrelated unconditioned stimulus (US) to produce a behavioural response known as a conditioned response (CR). In simple terms, two stimuli are paired to create a newly learned reaction in a person or animal. Many people know that Pavlov’s 1927 experiment with dogs is a classic example, but it’s essential to understand that classical conditioning involves automatic, reflexive responses rather than voluntary actions. This means that the reactions, such as salivation, nausea, changes in heart rate, pupil dilation or constriction, or even a reflexive motor reaction (like recoiling from a painful stimulus), occur naturally and without conscious control.

NEUTRAL STIMULUS (NS): A neutral stimulus evokes no reaction. It’s a person, place or thing that has no particular, personal backstory to the individual. Thus, If you don’t smoke, seeing a box of matches might go unnoticed. If you are a puppy and somebody rings a bell, it’s just random noise.

AN UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS (UCS): A stimulus you innately react to, such as seeing food, hearing loud noises, smelling fire, touching heat, seeing vampires, etc.

AN UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE (UCR): A response you innately (naturally) give, such as salivating over food, getting anxious after hearing a loud noise, or cowering when faced with ninjas. This is not conditioned it happens naturally.

A CONDITIONED STIMULUS (CS): A conditioned stimulus evokes a learned reaction to a person, place or thing. The object or concept has a particular, personal backstory to the individual. Thus, If you do smoke, you will notice the box of matches, because you always light your cigarettes with matches. If you are a puppy of Pavlov, then you will notice that bell ring. In other words, the reaction to the previously neutral stimulus has now become conditioned, and the unconditioned response has become conditioned.

A CONDITIONED RESPONSE (CR): Because the object/concept now has a particular, personal backstory to the individual. There will be learned reactions to it. . These are called conditioned responses. For example, as you now smoking, regularly, matches are no longer meaningless. Matches now remind you of a nicotine hit, and you physically need a cigarette. If you are the puppy, you now salivate when you hear a bell as you have learned an association between the bell ringing and food, so you now expect dinner. Or if you get stuck in a lift, the sight of the lift evokes fear because the lift has become a conditioned stimulus and the fear a conditioned response.

KEY STUDY: LITTLE ALBERT

John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920) Johns Hopkins University

AIMS

Demonstrate that emotional reactions, specifically fear, can be acquired through classical conditioning.
Test whether pairing a neutral stimulus with an aversive one can produce a learned fear response in a human subject.

DESIGN

A single-case study using a 9-month-old infant (Little Albert) as the participant.
Baseline observations confirmed the absence of initial fear towards the neutral stimulus.
Repeated pairings of a neutral stimulus with an aversive stimulus were implemented to establish conditioning.

METHOD

Initially, Little Albert was exposed to various stimuli (including a white rat) to record his natural reactions, which showed no fear.
The neutral stimulus (white rat) was repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus (a loud, startling noise produced by striking a metal bar).
After several pairings, the infant exhibited a fear response (crying, withdrawal) to the white rat alone.
The conditioned fear response is generalised to other similar stimuli, such as other furry objects.

CONCLUSIONS

The experiment showed that emotional responses like fear can be conditioned in humans, supporting the behaviourist view that emotions are learned through association.
It provided early evidence that learned fear can generalise to similar stimuli, not just the specific conditioned stimulus.
The findings laid the groundwork for further research into classical conditioning and its applications in understanding human behaviour.
Ethically, today’s standards consider the Little Albert experiment highly problematic. In 1920, when the experiment was conducted, ethical guidelines were not as stringent as they are now. Little Albert was subjected to repeated fear conditioning without any debriefing or measures taken to reverse the conditioned fear, which raises concerns about potential long-term harm. Although his parents did give consent at the time, there is little evidence to suggest that they were fully informed about the nature of the experiment or its potential consequences.

APPLIED EXAMPLE

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING APPLIED TO DRUG ADDICTION

It has been observed that dopamine activity occurs in addicts not just when the drug activity is taking place, e.g. not only when snorting cocaine but well before the consumption begins. For instance, it has been observed that Cocaine addicts’ reward systems respond when merely offered some, watching a video of someone using Cocaine or even looking at photographs of white lines on a mirror. Likewise, similar findings have been found in cigarette users, e.g., dopamine neurons firing in response to lighters, videos of smokers, etc. and when gamblers see fruit machines. According to Claridge and Davis (2003), these examples strongly suggest that the reward pathway in the brain has been classically conditioned, e.g. this is a passive form of learning where two stimuli become associated/linked with each other. In this way, the individual has learned cues that provoke a response similar to the drug. Once this happens, drug-seeking behaviour becomes driven by habit, almost reflex. This is how a drug user becomes transformed into a drug addict.

Initial Neutral Stimulus: Before classical conditioning occurs, the cues (mirrors, credit cards) are considered neutral stimuli (NS) because they do not elicit a response related to drug use.
Unconditioned Response (UCR): The unconditioned response (UCR) refers to the natural, unlearned response to a stimulus. In this case, the UCR is the euphoric feeling experienced when taking the drug (e.g., cocaine).
Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS): The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) is the stimulus that naturally triggers the unconditioned response. Here, it's the drug itself (e.g., cocaine).
Conditioned Stimulus (CS): Through repeated association with drug use, the previously neutral stimuli (mirrors, credit cards) become conditioned stimuli (CS). They acquire the ability to elicit a response.
Conditioned Response (CR): The conditioned response (CR) is the learned response to the conditioned stimulus. In this case, it's the craving or anticipation of the drug's effects triggered by the sight of mirrors or credit cards.
Craving and Addiction: As classical conditioning progresses, the drug addict can experience strong cravings and automatic, reflexive responses to the cues (CS) associated with drug use. These cues become powerful triggers for drug-seeking behaviour.
In summary, classical conditioning plays a significant role in drug addiction by associating neutral stimuli (cues) with the pleasurable effects of the drug. Over time, these cues can elicit strong cravings and lead to drug-seeking behaviour, even in the absence of the drug itself. This process demonstrates how learned associations can contribute to the transformation of a drug user into a drug addict.

ADDICTS REACT TO THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR ADDICTION IN A SIMILAR WAY TO THE ACTUAL ADDICTION ITSELF

In classical conditioning, a stimulus that precedes or co-occurs as a learned stimulus (such as a drug) may become a secondary reinforcer, deriving its influence only by association. Addicts react to things associated with their addiction in a similar way to actual addiction itself.

OBJECTS THAT WERE NEUTRAL A STIMULUS BECOME CONDITIONED STIMULUS, E.G.,

SMOKING CUES

Matches, Lighters, Cigarette Boxes, Ashtrays: These objects, initially neutral, become associated with the act of smoking. Smokers may experience cravings or a conditioned response when they see or handle these items.
Smoking Buddies: People with whom an individual often smokes become associated with smoking behaviour. Simply being around these friends can trigger cravings or the desire to smoke.
Feeling Stressed Areas: Specific environments or situations where an individual typically smokes, especially when feeling stressed, become powerful cues. Being in these areas can lead to cravings.

GAMBLING CUES

Betting Slips/Shops, Gambling Odds in Newspapers, Casinos: These locations and materials become associated with gambling activities. Seeing a betting slip or being in a casino can trigger the urge to gamble.
Adverts: Advertisements related to gambling, whether on TV, online, or in print, serve as cues. They can lead individuals to think about gambling and may even prompt them to engage in the behaviour.
Playing Cards: Objects like playing cards are associated with gambling games. Handling playing cards can evoke thoughts of gambling and the desire to gamble.

These cues, once they have become conditioned stimuli (CS), have the power to elicit conditioned responses, such as cravings or the urge to engage in addictive behaviours, even when the actual addictive behaviour is not occurring. This phenomenon highlights the role of learned associations and classical conditioning in addiction, where cues in the environment become powerful triggers for addictive behaviours.

OPERANT CONDITIONING

Operant conditioning is a method of learning that occurs through positive and negative reinforcement and punishment of behaviour. Through operant conditioning, an individual associates a particular behaviour and a consequence (Skinner, 1938). While classical conditioning is a form of learning that binds external stimuli to reflexive, involuntary responses, operant conditioning involves voluntary behaviours. It is maintained over time by the consequences that follow those behaviours.

SKINNER'S BOX — In one experiment, Skinner placed rats individually into experimental chambers (sometimes referred to as "Skinner boxes") that were designed to deliver food rewards at systematic intervals. He found that by rewarding a rat after it displayed the desired behaviour, he could motivate the rat to increase the frequency of that particular behaviour.

The tools used in operant conditioning are positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment.

Let’s break them down.

POSITIVE: means to add something, as in mathematics, it means addition, +
NEGATIVE means to minus or withdraw something, as in mathematics, it means subtraction, -
REINFORCEMENT: Means to encourage a behaviour to continue by reinforcing it
PUNISHMENT Means to discourage or stop a behaviour from continuing by punishing it

Individuals change their behaviour in response to rewards and punishments. These rewards (proper name - reinforcement) and punishments can bring mood and material changes (e.g. money).

Reinforcement: when behaviour leads to pleasant consequences, it is more likely to be repeated.
Reinforcement can be positive + and negative) –

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT –gaining something pleasant increases the behaviour: When behaviour leads to pleasant consequences, it is more likely to be repeated. For example, smoking may give you a cool reputation and get you accepted into certain social groups you see as trendy and desirable. Or it may be winning a tenner on a fruit machine.

NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT – losing something unpleasant increases the behaviour: When behaviour stops something undesirable, the behaviour is more likely to be repeated. e.g. if a teenager notices that people in the ‘in-crowd” stop ignoring her when she starts smoking, she will be more likely to smoke again. This is what we mean by negative reinforcement. It increases the behaviour because we remove something unpleasant, e.g., being ignored.

Reinforcement can be continuous, e.g. a reward given every time a behaviour happens or intermittent a reward is only given sometimes. Variable ratio schedule rewards are an example of intermittent rewards, such as when you go fishing or gambling. You never know when you are going to hit the big one!

REINFORCEMENT: when behaviour leads to negative consequences, it is less likely to be repeated.
PUNISHMENT: Can be positive + and negative)

POSITIVE PUNISHMENT - when behaviour leads to unpleasant consequences, it is less likely to be repeated. Suppose an individual behaves in an undesirable way. In that case, you present or add an unpleasant thing, such as giving chores, giving lines, phoning parents, smacking, insulting, giving detention, giving fines, giving prison sentences, executing, expelling, suspending, barring, hurting, ignoring, firing. You have made it less likely that the individual will behave that way again. This is called positive punishment.

NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT Losing something pleasant due to engaging in certain behaviours means the behaviour is less likely to be repeated. Suppose an individual behaves in an undesirable way. In that case, a valuable thing can be removed to extinguish the conduct., e.g., taking away confectionery and privileges, removing smartphones, PlayStation, TVs, liberty, toys, sex, affection, etc. You will then have made it less likely that the individual will behave that way again. This is a negative punishment. I used to remove my daughter’s lightbulb if she was naughty!

It’s worth noting that Skinner argued that reinforcement is more effective than punishment in modifying behaviour.

It can be not very clear. Remember that the behaviour increases when you use positive and negative reinforcement. When you use positive or negative punishment, the behaviour will decrease, if not diminish.
Remember that positive means giving the subject something, either a pleasant thing or a negative thing and that negative means taking away something from the subject, either a pleasant thing or a negative thing.

A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS:

If a stimulus is pleasing or rewarding, your psych textbooks might call it "appetitive." If the stimulus is unrewarding or unwanted, it might be called "aversive."Positive reinforcement and negative punishment involve appetitive stimuli. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement involve aversive stimuli.

Chaining is how complex behaviours are taught. Chaining refers to a method of teaching a behaviour using behaviour chains. Behaviour chains are sequences of individual behaviours that, when linked together, form a terminal behaviour. When teaching a behaviour using chaining, the first step is to complete a task analysis. Task analyses identify all of the smaller, teachable units of behaviour that make up a behaviour chain.

SUMMARY

The power of the consequence is what makes operant conditioning so successful. Operant conditioning has everyday practical applications. Merely nodding at someone and maintaining eye contact shows you are listening. This positive reinforcer suggests that what that person is saying is interesting. Schools use gold stars, merits, and prize giving as positive reinforcers and detention and exclusion as punishments. Parents and the government also use operant conditioning techniques to control and train us. Watch Super Nanny. She is an operant conditioner, as sitting naughty kids on the stairs for time out is a positive punishment.

REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES IN OPERANT CONDITIONING

Reinforcement schedules in operant conditioning determine when and how often a behaviour is reinforced or rewarded. There are several types of reinforcement schedules, each with its effects on behaviour. Let's simplify these schedules with examples:

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF BEHAVIORISM

BEHAVIOURISM AND PARSIMONY

Behaviourism is closely associated with the principle of parsimony, or Occam's razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. In behaviourism, complex human behaviour should be understood and explained in terms of observable actions and simple cause-and-effect relationships rather than delving into abstract internal processes like thoughts or emotions. Behaviourism simplifies psychological theory by focusing solely on measurable behaviour, avoiding the need for speculative concepts or multi-layered explanations. For instance, instead of exploring the complexities of cognition, memory, or consciousness, behaviourism emphasizes conditioning and reinforcement as sufficient to explain and predict human actions. This parsimonious approach has both its advantages in terms of clarity and focus but also its limitations, as it may exclude essential factors that could enrich our understanding of human behaviour.

By focusing solely on observable actions and external stimuli, behaviourism offers simple, testable explanations for complex behaviours without resorting to unobservable internal mental states. This "Occam's razor" approach seeks to account for behaviour using minimal assumptions—primarily classical and operant conditioning processes. While this parsimony makes theories elegant and empirically verifiable, critics argue that it can oversimplify human behaviour by neglecting the intricate internal processes and subjective experiences that influence our actions.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE BLACKBOX

Behaviourism dominated psychology from the early twentieth century until the 1960s. However, it began to lose prominence with the rise of cognitive psychology, which argued that studying internal mental processes was essential to understanding human behaviour. While behaviourism views humans and animals as passive responders to environmental stimuli, cognitive psychology emphasizes the role of internal processes in shaping actions and decisions. Alternative approaches like social learning theory and cognitive psychology introduced mediational processes, self-efficacy, and motivation, suggesting that individuals actively shape their responses based on internal factors. These approaches also demonstrate why two individuals may respond differently to the same stimulus—something that behaviourism, focusing on external stimuli and responses, cannot explain. Furthermore, behaviourism's exclusion of the "black box" of the brain means it could not account for how processes like memory, perception, attention, and consciousness influence behaviour. While behaviourism had a significant impact, it remains limited in explaining the full complexity of human behaviour, especially when it comes to understanding mental processes that shape reaction patterns across different contexts.

Paradoxically, recent research (Libet) from cognitive neuroscience has shown that the human brain makes up its mind to ten seconds before an individual is cognisant of a decision. The neuroimaging of participants making decisions revealed that researchers could predict what choice people would make before the subjects were even aware of having made a decision. So perhaps Skinner and the other early behaviourists were partially right.

OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION, SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE: RETHINKING THE LIMITS OF BEHAVIOURISM

One significant criticism of behaviourism is that its focus on observable behaviour excludes subjective experiences, such as internal thoughts and feelings, from the scientific study of human behaviour. While behaviourism only considers what can be directly observed, it could be argued that other sciences, like physics, study phenomena (e.g., gravity) that are not directly observable yet are still considered valid and scientific. This limited perspective on what constitutes 'valid science' has its flaws. For example, here's a humorous illustration: two behaviourists engage in a passionate encounter and, the next morning, one asks, "How was it for me?" This points out the absurdity of claiming that humans cannot self-reflect or assess their own behaviour subjectively, emphasising self-awareness as part of being human. When behaviourism emerged, there was a lack of tools—such as fMRI and PET scans—that would allow scientists to explore internal influences on behaviour. Despite the limitations of that era, many behaviourists resisted studying the "black box" of the mind, even if those tools had been available, as they regarded it as irrelevant for understanding human action. for 12 seconds

One major criticism of behaviourism is that it insists on studying only objectively observable behaviour, yet observation itself is inherently subjective. Critics note that scientists regularly study phenomena like gravity—which cannot be directly observed—without diminishing their scientific validity. This challenges the belief that only observable matter is worthy of study. A well-targeted joke illustrates this flaw: two behaviourists spend a passionate night together, and in the morning one asks, "It was good for you. How was it for me?" This quip suggests that the ability to self-reflect on one’s internal experience is both natural and significant, contradicting the idea that subjective states are irrelevant.

When behaviourism first emerged, tools like fMRI and PET scans were unavailable to explore internal thought processes. Even if such tools had existed, many behaviourists would likely have dismissed the 'black box' of the mind as irrelevant to understanding human behaviour

EXTERNAL VALIDITY

Behaviourism often relies on controlled laboratory experiments with animals, raising questions about whether these findings truly apply to everyday human behaviour. For example, in a lab setting, a rat might be conditioned to press a lever for a food pellet based purely on stimulus-response learning. By contrast, a teenager might be conditioned to enjoy sweets; however, unlike the rat, the teenager is also aware of potential consequences such as weight gain. This additional consideration means that while the sweet may be rewarding, the teenager might moderate their consumption—an influence that isn’t captured in simple animal experiments. Thus, the conditions of laboratory research can produce behaviours that differ from those observed in more complex, real-world human contexts.

REDUCTIONISM

Behaviourism has been criticised for being reductionist because it simplifies complex behaviours to basic stimulus-response associations or operant conditioning principles, overlooking the numerous other factors contributing to behaviour. For instance, while behaviourism might explain law-abiding behaviour through positive reinforcement or punishment, it ignores other potential influences, such as inbuilt moral values, personal experiences, or the role of biological factors like a reactive amygdala. This reductionist approach fails to capture the full complexity of human behaviour by focusing solely on observable actions and neglecting underlying emotional, cognitive, and biological processes.Behaviours like aggression or moral decision-making cannot be entirely explained by conditioning alone, as various contributing factors are at play, including innate emotional responses and personal beliefs. for 8 seconds

DETERMINISM

Behaviourism has often been criticised for its deterministic stance—a form of environmental determinism that views all behaviours as products of past experiences, thereby ignoring free will. This perspective implies that when something happens, it is not a result of conscious decision-making but of pre-existing conditioning. For example, in Watson and Rayner's Little Albert study, the infant’s fear of a white rat was not a choice but a conditioned response. This deterministic view not only absolves individuals of personal responsibility—since their actions are seen as predetermined by their history—but it also tends to assign blame to the environmental factors that shaped them. In contrast, humanistic psychology asserts that humans possess free will and personal agency, enabling them to make independent choices rather than simply following deterministic laws.

NATURE VERSUS NURTURE

Critics of behaviourism argue that its emphasis on observable learning and environmental influences—focusing on nurture—neglect significant biological factors. Neuroscience has revealed that elements such as chromosomes, neurotransmitters, and hormones profoundly shape our behaviour, suggesting that many actions have an innate, organic basis. Biological psychologists point to factors like biological sex, the effects of drugs, disease, and accidental brain damage—elements that are often overlooked when behaviour is explained solely through conditioning and observable responses. Robert Plomin of King’s College London argues that much of what we consider environmental influence is an expression of genetics. For example, he proposes that a child growing up in squalor might do so because inherited traits, such as a lower IQ, predispose them to that environment rather than the deprivation causing the low IQ.

Over time, the traditional nature versus nurture debate has shifted from a binary opposition to a discussion about proportions. Even Skinner, a radical behaviourist, acknowledged that both genetic and environmental influences are important. Modern research suggests that genetic heritability accounts for roughly 50% of the psychological differences between individuals, with the remaining 50% attributed to environmental factors.

However, this perspective may underestimate the crucial role of learning in early brain development. Human infants are born with relatively few neural networks, and their brains develop rapidly in response to environmental stimuli during critical periods. Missing these key inputs can have lasting, detrimental effects on brain architecture. Thus, while genetics undoubtedly plays a significant role, early learning is essential in shaping who we become

PLASTICITY

Behaviourism remains vital because it is integral to understanding how the brain develops—specifically, how nurture impacts nature. Babies are born prematurely with around 100 billion neurons, but these neurons are not pre-connected. Instead, the brain undergoes significant development through environmental interactions, including developmental and structural plasticity. This is where nature and nurture intersect, as environmental factors shape the growth and organisation of neural connections. Moreover, there is evidence that associative learning—through operant and classical conditioning—creates and enhances neural networks in the brain. These networks undergo structural changes due to environmental influences, practice, and learning new skills. Over time, this neuroplasticity ensures that operant and classical conditioning effects are hardwired into the brain, creating lasting behavioural changes. In this way, the nature versus nurture debate is more of a conundrum solved, as nature and nurture are not separate but inextricably connected; each continually influences and shapes the other, illustrating how they are intertwined in the development of human behaviour.

BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION

Society is primarily built on the principles of reinforcement and punishment. Behaviour modification refers to altering behavioural patterns using techniques such as classical conditioning, operant conditioning (with both positive and negative reinforcement and punishment), and even biofeedback. These methods have practical applications across many fields. For instance, in psychiatry and the penal system, token economies are used—prisoners earn tokens for good behaviour, which they can later exchange for rewards. Such treatments are particularly useful for individuals who may not be fully aware of their condition or capable of discussing their problems. Beyond clinical settings, behaviour modification is employed by parents to instil societal norms and a sense of right and wrong, by therapists to promote healthier behaviours, by animal trainers to establish obedience, and by educators and employers through incentives like grades, wages, or certificates.

RULES, LAWS AND ANARCHY

Conditioning strategies central to behaviourism also underpin enforcing social rules and laws. Without such systems of reinforcement and punishment, it is argued that society would fall into disarray—laws would be disregarded, and anarchy could ensue. In everyday life, rewards and penalties encourage punctuality, compliance, and productivity, essential for the effective functioning of schools, workplaces, and broader society.

However, some critics contend that behaviour modification can be used as a tool for social control. Authorities, institutions, and businesses often employ behavioural techniques to shape individual actions and maintain order. A striking example of this is the use of behaviour modification on Soviet dissidents, where the aim was to change behaviours deemed unacceptable by the regime. This dual nature of behaviour modification—its capacity to foster social order on one hand and its potential for manipulation on the other—highlights its powerful applications and controversial implications.

Behaviour modification in A Clockwork Orange

BEHAVIOURISM APPLIED TO ADVERTISING

The advertising industry has long capitalised on the principles of classical conditioning to shape consumer behaviour. Advertisers aim to create an automatic, conditioned response in their target audience by pairing a product with stimuli that naturally evoke positive emotions. For example, a product like beer may be repeatedly shown alongside images of a scantily clad, attractive woman. The appealing image is an unconditioned stimulus that naturally elicits desire or excitement, while the beer is the neutral stimulus. Over time, through repeated pairing, the positive emotional response becomes linked to the beer, so consumers begin associating the product with those feelings.

This approach reflects a broader philosophy shared by both behaviourism and consumerism, wherein the shopper, student, worker, and voter are all viewed as passive entities that external cues can condition. The underlying assumption is that if people are repeatedly exposed to the right stimulus, their responses can be predicted and manipulated, effectively reducing complex human decision-making to a series of automatic reactions. Such methods not only drive purchasing decisions but also reinforce consumer culture, as they strip away the active, critical role of the individual, reducing them to a series of conditioned responses.

BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH